The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) provide guidelines on a vast range of aspects of health care issues. This week NICE updated their 2006 guidelines on postnatal care (Guideline CG37) which included recommendations on co-sleeping (defined by NICE as parents or carers sleeping on a bed or sofa or chair with an infant) and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) up until infants are one year old. The updated guidelines report “an association between co-sleeping and SIDS” but also states that “the evidence does not allow us to say that co‑sleeping causes SIDS”. So what does this mean and how did the media handle this potentially complex message? Read more…
Guest Post by Neil McLennan.
Following newspaper headlines, I have previously written on two themes regarding education research. Firstly, the need to promote good research and evaluation to the teaching profession so that micro research might be used in a local context to explore what learning works and the most effective pedagogy in context. Secondly, I have written about the false dichotomy that often accompanies the release of education research where we see methods either triumphed or the baby thrown out with the bathwater in some unhelpful news headlines. Read more…
As we approach the end of November we might start thinking about the best and the worst of 2014. This week, a study was mentioned “as a strong candidate for worst genetic study to make the headlines in 2014” by Professor Tim Frayling, a geneticist at the University of Exeter.
Did you read the one last week about more complex jobs being associated with cognitive ability in old age? Well, that was one of mine! While it’s generally not our style at Research the Headlines to provide a commentary on our own research, or the reporting of that, I thought it might be interesting to use that recent media coverage to illustrate what goes on behind the scenes to go from the research to the headline. Read more…
Here at Research the Headlines, we have frequently written about environmental factors that may be linked with developmental disorders such as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) or Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). We have done so because the media frequently reports on such studies. So is there really evidence for a link between ADHD and mothers being exposed to air pollution during their pregnancies as current media headlines would suggest? Read more…
Over the last few months, many of our Research the Headlines contributors have produced some “top tips” to help you to “Research the Headlines”. We’ve compiled the full How to “Research the Headlines” series below, so please do continue to read, share and feedback.
At Research the Headlines, our aim is to examine “the way in which research is discussed and portrayed in the media”. So, whether you have some background in research or none at all, we hope the short tips are interesting, and that they might help you to get closer to the latest research reported in the media.
The human health benefits (or disbenefits) of milk and dairy products continue to grab the headlines. Recently the media reported on a study in the British Medical Journal relating milk intake (liquid and products) to the risk of bone fractures and mortality in men and women. So is this the final evidence that means school milk will never darken our doors again? Well the answer to that would appear to be no, and on the whole the press coverage of the original study was fair and balanced. The reports point to one of the main conclusions that drinking (a lot) of milk may have some health risks with the headlines ranging from Milk might not be as good for us as we thought to Three glasses of milk a day can lead to early death. In reality the most accurate of the headlines reporting this study was High milk diet ‘may not cut risk of bone fractures’. Read more…
We’ve now reached the final post in our How to “Research the Headlines” series, and our last tip is about news stories that appear to be based on evidence gathered from a research study or studies, but on closer inspection range from simple exaggeration to unsupported opinions of the writer or some other source. This shaky factual basis for reporting can easily happen when a researcher has been speaking about their recent findings and goes beyond what their data can actually support, often simply because of over-enthusiasm for their latest piece of work. It can be more serious, however, if there’s genuinely no research basis for a story that’s being reported as such. So here are a few pointers to help you sort the fact (all we mean by “fact” in this context, of course, is that the story is based on some published research; the nature of a fact is beyond our scope today!), from the fiction (opinion or hyperbole masquerading as research).
The observation that autism prevalence has been increasing, beyond what would be explained by improved diagnosis alone, has launched the quest to identify the factors responsible. In spite of an increasing list of such factors, few can actually stand up to serious scrutiny. However, the media rarely miss a chance to report any potential risk factor, most of the time based on inconclusive studies, which can then have dramatic effects on health choices. The most extreme example was the suggested link between MMR vaccinations and autism, alimenting the anti-vaccination movement and leading to measles outbreaks. The list of putative risk factors includes mercury, pollutants, parenting strategies, dairy products and video games. Emily Willingham, scientist and blogger, has reviewed up to 50 factors, inclduing relevant references, in this caustic post, and Research The Headlines recently covered a story suggesting siblings born closer together are at higher risk for autism.
The punchlines almost write themselves…
As someone married to a non-native English speaker, I feel duty-bound to attempt to learn my wife’s language. But, as with so many things in life, my motivation to actually knuckle down and learn is ever an issue. Perhaps because of this, the Daily Mail’s online headline “Yes! Oui! Si! Learning a new language activates the same part of the brain as SEX” certainly caught my monolingual eye. It goes on to further claim that “A new study suggests that learning a new language stimulates the same part of the brain as having sex or eating chocolate.” So how do these claims match up to the science behind the story?
